Petraeus Knew Quickly Who was Behind Libya Attack: Report



Petraeus knew quickly who was behind Libya attack: report (via AFP)

Former CIA director David Petraeus is to tell lawmakers he knew “almost immediately” after the attack on a US mission in Libya that Al-Qaeda linked Ansar al-Sharia was to blame, CNN reported Thursday. Petraeus, who stepped down last week amid revelations that he had an affair with his 40-year-old married…



         

Author: Guest Voice

Share This Post On

9 Comments

  1. Well, well, so it ain’t just FOX’s imagination, as Slam put it: ” I am just so confused, unless FOX is once again just making it up as they go along to sell their narrative still. They couldn’t be still doing that after the election could they?”

    Did Petreus betrayus with his first pronouncement that it was the film, or was that inaccurate and will the hearing today clear it all up.
    Don’t tune in cause it’s a closed hearing.
    All we will get will be partisan peeks from members at the end of the day.

  2. I hope Gen. Petraeus acted on his “immediate” knowledge of what happened a world away; that’s damn good especially for a CIA that has fumbled repeatedly in humint. They must have had some success with the psychic communication they’ve been studying lo these many years. I wonder if he notified his boss, the DNI, of that knowledge and told him how he could substantiate it. Perhaps it was the DNI that didn’t trust his “immediate” knowledge and was waiting to get the facts before making a final determination for the President? Things were a little confused there at the time.

    The poor family of Ambassador Stevens, to have to watch this malicious political maneuvering.

  3. Ohio, “Perhaps it was the DNI that didn’t trust his “immediate” knowledge and was waiting to get the facts before making a final determination for the President?”
    Good advice, perhaps the WH should have followed it before sending Rice and carney to the firing line.

  4. Just saw a previous CIA type on tv and he said there is always classified and unclassified information given to the admins. They always use the unclassified to protect sources. Apparently that was the case here as it has always been in all previous administrations. McCain and Graham know that very well or should after all their years in Congress. Pure political posturing on their part. And doubly despicable light of the deaths of four Americans.

  5. So it was shoot first aim later, “as in all previous administrations”. Got it.

  6. He did not know quickly. Knowing and confusion do not mix. He may have thought or had a very good idea, but he did not know.

    people need to stop believing that their beliefs are facts.

  7. SL, I was referring to this paragraph, above: “The former CIA chief will say while he knew “almost immediately” that Ansar al-Sharia militants were to blame, there was “confusion” about the assault, with 20 intelligence reports linking it to an anti-Islamic video.”

  8. There needs tobe some slack cut: There is always chaos & confusion in situations like this.

    The questioning on “what did people say during & soon after” is misplaced. More important is “did anyone suspect beforehand and why was nothing done” and “were official comments intended to cover up bad judgement beforehand.” That’s all that really matters.

  9. Why, why, go out with one side of the story if their is “chaos and confusion”. O admires TR who said speak quietly and ……..
    Right from the get go, many, including me, felt that the film story would go up in flame like the celluloid it was.

    In the old days, like Watergate, things moved more slowly- it took months to uncover the coverup. Today we expect fast and accurate information and perhaps that is asking too much.
    BUT what we don’t need is redacted or inaccurate fast information.

Submit a Comment